[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Changes by STINNER Victor : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file21735/signal_pthread_sigmask.patch ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

STINNER Victor added the comment: Oh, I forget to read again http://codereview.appspot.com/1132041. Here is an updated patch reusing some tests and with a better documentation. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file21736/signal_pthread_sigmask-2.patch _

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

STINNER Victor added the comment: signal_pthread_sigmask.patch: - add signal.pthread_sigmask() function with doc and tests - add SIG_BLOCK, SIG_UNBLOCK, SIG_SETMASK constants - fix #11859: fix tests of test_io using threads and an alarm: use pthread_sigmask() to ensure that only the main thr

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

STINNER Victor added the comment: sigprocmask or (better) pthread_sigmask is required to fix #11859 bug. --- Python has a test for "broken pthread_sigmask". Extract of configure.in: AC_MSG_CHECKING(if PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM is supported) AC_CACHE_VAL(ac_cv_pthread_system_supported,

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Changes by STINNER Victor : -- nosy: +haypo ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.o

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Michael Schurter added the comment: Any hopes of getting this into Python 3.3? -- nosy: +schmichael versions: +Python 3.3 -Python 2.7 ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Benjamin Peterson added the comment: Let's leave it for 3.2. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > If everyone agrees this is inappropriate for 2.7 I think the decision is up to Benjamin. -- nosy: +benjamin.peterson ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Jean-Paul Calderone added the comment: I think this is ready for a first review. See . If everyone agrees this is inappropriate for 2.7, then I'll port the changes to 3.x. I don't expect there to be much difference in the 3.x version. -- keyw

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Tres Seaver added the comment: Trying pthread_sigmask first, and falling back, seems like the right strategy to me. -- nosy: +tseaver ___ Python tracker ___

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > pthread_sigmask should be used instead. I could either expose both of > > these and let the caller choose, or I could make signal.sigprocmask use > > pthread_sigmask if it's available, and fall back to sigprocmask. Or perhaps you could disable the feature

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Changes by Antoine Pitrou : -- nosy: +gregory.p.smith -gps ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http:

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Changes by Jean-Paul Calderone : -- nosy: +gps ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pytho

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Jean-Paul Calderone added the comment: One open question regarding interaction with threading. sigprocmask's behavior in a multithreaded program is unspecified. pthread_sigmask should be used instead. I could either expose both of these and let the caller choose, or I could make signal.sig

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Jean-Paul Calderone added the comment: > The one big difference I can see is that set_wakeup_fd() doesn't transmit the > signal number, but this could be fixed if desired (instead of sending '\0', > send a byte containing the signal number). There's a lot more information than the signal numb

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: I'm with Martin, better to target 3.2 IMO. Does signalfd really bring something compared to set_wakeup_fd()? The one big difference I can see is that set_wakeup_fd() doesn't transmit the signal number, but this could be fixed if desired (instead of sending '\0'

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Changes by Andrew Bennetts : -- nosy: +spiv ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.o

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Changes by Marcin Bachry : -- nosy: +marcin.bachry ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.p

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Martin v. Löwis added the comment: Notice that 2.7 has seen its first beta release, so no new features are allowed for it. I think it's better to target this feature for 3.2. -- nosy: +loewis ___ Python tracker __

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

Jean-Paul Calderone added the comment: I've started on an implementation of this in /branches/signalfd-issue8407. -- ___ Python tracker ___ __

[issue8407] expose signalfd(2) and sigprocmask(2) in the signal module

New submission from Jean-Paul Calderone : Linux offers the signalfd syscall since 2.6.22 (with minor changes afterwards). This call allows signals to be handled as bytes read out of a file descriptor, rather than as interruptions to the flow of a program. Quite usefully, this file descriptor